Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Genaro Lemus-Cisneros, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. The government argued he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as an applicant for admission. The magistrate judge rejected this position, noting that Lemus-Cisneros had lived in the United States for the past 27 years, and found he was instead subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Lemus-Cisneros had received a bond hearing on July 15, 2025, and sought a second hearing. The magistrate judge applied the test from Mathews v. Eldridge, as the Ninth Circuit had done in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, to evaluate whether a second bond hearing was warranted. After considering the Mathews factors, the magistrate judge found they weighed in the government's favor and outweighed the petitioner's interest in a second bond hearing.
Lemus-Cisneros also raised a substantive due process claim, arguing that his continued detention was irrational and arbitrary because his two prior convictions for driving under the influence did not merit a finding that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger. The magistrate judge found the court lacked jurisdiction to reweigh the evidence supporting the immigration judge's decision, and that such challenges must be raised to the Board of Immigration Appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). The magistrate judge also found the petitioner failed to show his detention was punitive or excessive in relation to its regulatory purpose.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition to the extent Lemus-Cisneros challenged the applicable detention authority and denying relief on the procedural and substantive due process grounds. The court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties with notice that objections were due within 21 days. More than 30 days later, Respondents filed untimely objections that merely referenced their previously-filed briefings without engaging with the magistrate judge's analysis. Petitioner filed no objections and requested the court adopt the Findings and Recommendations and enter final judgment.
The district court found Respondents' general objections insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), which requires specific objections to magistrate judges' findings and recommendations. The court noted that while the petition was pending, the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Vazquez rejected the same argument offered by Respondents and held that individuals such as Petitioner are not subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b).
After performing a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court concluded the Findings and Recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. The court adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full, granted the petition to the extent Petitioner challenged the detention authority, denied the petition as to the due process grounds raised, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Immigration detainees who have lived in the United States for an extended period may not be subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as applicants for admission, but instead fall under discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- General objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations that merely incorporate prior briefing without engaging with the analysis are insufficient and treated as a failure to object under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).
- Federal courts lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) to reweigh evidence supporting an immigration judge's bond decision; such challenges must be raised to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test applies to determine whether an immigration detainee is entitled to a second bond hearing, and courts may find the government's interest outweighs the detainee's interest in a second hearing.
- A substantive due process challenge to immigration detention requires showing the detention is punitive or excessive in relation to its regulatory purpose, not merely that the detainee disagrees with the dangerousness determination.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the distinction between mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) for applicants for admission and discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) for individuals with established presence in the United States. The ruling aligns with the Ninth Circuit's intervening decision in Rodriguez Vazquez, which rejected the government's broad interpretation of mandatory detention provisions for long-term residents.
The case also illustrates the procedural importance of filing timely and specific objections to magistrate judge findings and recommendations. Respondents' failure to file timely, specific objections resulted in waiver of their arguments, and the court's adoption of the recommendations was further supported by intervening circuit authority that undermined Respondents' legal position.